SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
August, 10 2017, 11:15am EDT
Contact:
Lindsay Meiman,Senior U.S. Communications Specialist,lindsay@350.org,us-comms@350.org,+1 347 460 9082,New York, USA
450,000+ Comments Against Keystone XL Pipeline Delivered to Nebraska Commission
Comments were delivered during hearings on whether to allow Keystone XL pipeline in Nebraska
Lincoln, NE
**PHOTOS: View and download photos of the event for use by media**
(https://www.flickr.com/photos/boldnebraska/albums/72157687430500175)
Today, over 461,000 public comments were delivered to the Nebraska Public Service Commissioners, urging them to reject a construction permit for the Keystone XL pipeline through the state. The comments were collected by Bold Nebraska, CREDO, Sierra Club, 350.org, Oil Change International, MoveOn.org Civic Action, Center for Biological Diversity, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Friends of the Earth U.S.
(WATCH: Facebook Live video of delivery feat. comments from Bold Nebraska's Jane Kleeb: https://facebook.com/BoldNebraska/videos/1428084740573475)
The pipeline, which would carry 830,000 barrels of tar sands oil per day through multiple states and onto the export market, would pass through land in Nebraska that farmers and ranchers have refused to sell to the pipeline company, TransCanada. The comment delivery took place during hearings held by the Nebraska Public Service Commission to determine whether or not to grant a construction permit for the Keystone XL pipeline.
A day before the hearings on August 6th, hundreds from Nebraska and surrounding states marched through the streets of Lincoln, highlighting the threat that Keystone XL poses to farmers, Tribal Nations, the climate, and countless communities along its route. Commissioners are expected to issue a decision on the matter by November 23rd. If the permit is granted, it would mandate the use of eminent domain for private gain, forcing Nebraskans to sell their land for the benefit of the fossil fuel industry.
QUOTES:
Jane Kleeb, Bold Nebraska:
"The amount of opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline is clear. Our water, property rights, climate and the Sovereign Rights of Native Nations are in the public interest and must be protected from this foreign tarsands pipeline."
Sara Shor, Keep it in the Ground Campaign Manager, 350.org:
"The Nebraska Public Service Commission has hundreds of thousands of people who oppose the Keystone XL pipeline. People across the country have been fighting Keystone XL for years -- they didn't want it from the beginning, and they don't want it now. This pipeline is and has always been a threat to our water, land, and climate, and the risks are not worth the reward. Already, solar panels are lining Keystone's proposed route, putting solutions in the path of the problem. It's time to stop this pipeline for good and invest in the renewable energy future we need."
John Crabtree, Campaign Representative, Sierra Club:
"For years, Nebraskans and concerned citizens across the country have made it clear that building Keystone XL would be wrong for Nebraska and wrong for America. Today's comment delivery represents the massive movement urging the PSC to protect Nebraska's land, water, and wildlife by rejecting this dirty, dangerous tar sands pipeline."
Josh Nelson, Deputy Political Director, CREDO:
"Hundreds of thousands of people around the country know that the Keystone XL pipeline is a bad idea that would pollute our water supplies and supercharge climate change. We'll soon find out if the Nebraska Public Service Commission is willing to stand up to Trump and a Canadian oil company by denying the permit needed for the pipeline to move forward. With a so-called president who publicly denies climate science and an administration in the pocket of Big Oil, it is crucial for state agencies to do their part by rejecting dirty fossil fuel projects like Keystone XL."
Collin Rees, Campaigner, Oil Change International:
"The Nebraska Public Service Commission faces a clear choice: Stand with a foreign oil company that has publically admitted they might not build this pipeline even if they get the permits, or stand with the people of Nebraska and a renewable energy future. Native tribes, farmers, ranchers, Nebraskans, and millions of activists around the globe have been fighting this Keystone XL for years, and they'll keep fighting until it's stopped for good. There's no sense in approving a pipeline full of tar sands, the dirtiest oil on earth, when we know we can't develop new fossil fuels and remain within climate limits. The PSC must reject this dirty export pipeline."
Marcie Keever, Director, Friends of the Earth:
"In the streets of Lincoln and across the state, Nebraskans have made their unified voice heard: Do not build this pipeline across our state. The fact that Nebraska has become the last line of defense between this dirty pipeline and our nation's clean water and clean air is a testament to the corruption and backroom dealings that put KXL in motion. It is time for the Nebraska Public Service Commission to listen to the people, instead of a corporation that is dead-set on destroying our environment so that their executives can profit."
Taylor McKinnon, campaigner, Center for Biological Diversity
"Propping up Canada's dying oil industry isn't worth the damage that Keystone XL would inflict on our land, water, wildlife and climate. The public gets this and has for years -- which is why so many people voiced their opposition again today. It's time for the Nebraska Public Service Commission to end Keystone XL for good."
350 is building a future that's just, prosperous, equitable and safe from the effects of the climate crisis. We're an international movement of ordinary people working to end the age of fossil fuels and build a world of community-led renewable energy for all.
LATEST NEWS
Trump Targets Another Late Night Comedian, Saying It's 'Probably Illegal' to Make Fun of Him
"You need to understand that he actually believes it is illegal to criticize him," wrote Sen. Chris Murphy.
Nov 02, 2025
After failing to use the government's might to bully Jimmy Kimmel off the air earlier this fall, President Donald Trump is once again threatening to bring the force of law down on comedians for the egregious crime of making fun of him.
This time, his target was NBC late-night host Seth Meyers, whom the president said, in a Truth Social post Saturday, "may be the least talented person to 'perform' live in the history of television."
On Thursday, the comedian hosted a segment mocking Trump's bizarre distaste for the electromagnetic catapults aboard Navy ships, which the president said he may sign an executive order to replace with older (and less efficient) steam-powered ones.
Trump did not take kindly to Meyers' barbs: "On and on he went, a truly deranged lunatic. Why does NBC waste its time and money on a guy like this??? - NO TALENT, NO RATINGS, 100% ANTI TRUMP, WHICH IS PROBABLY ILLEGAL!!!"
It is, of course, not "illegal" for a late-night comedian, or any other news reporter or commentator, for that matter, to be "anti-Trump." But it's not the first time the president has made such a suggestion. Amid the backlash against Kimmel's firing in September, Trump asserted that networks that give him "bad publicity or press" should have their licenses taken away.
"I read someplace that the networks were 97% against me... I mean, they’re getting a license, I would think maybe their license should be taken away,” Trump said. "All they do is hit Trump. They’re licensed. They’re not allowed to do that.”
His FCC director, Brendan Carr, used a similar logic to justify his pressure campaign to get Kimmel booted by ABC, which he said could be punished for airing what he determined was "distorted” content.
Before Kimmel, Carr suggested in April that Comcast may be violating its broadcast licenses after MSNBC declined to air a White House press briefing in which the administration defended its wrongful deportation of Salvadoran immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
"You need to understand that he actually believes it is illegal to criticize him," wrote Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on social media following Trump's tirade against Meyers. "Why? Because Trump believes he—not the people—decides the law. This is why we are in the middle of, not on the verge of, a totalitarian takeover."
Keep ReadingShow Less
ICE's 'Frightening' Facial Recognition App is Scanning US Citizens Without Their Consent
"An ICE officer may ignore evidence of American citizenship—including a birth certificate—if the app says the person is an alien," said the ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee.
Nov 01, 2025
Immigration agents are using facial recognition software as "definitive" evidence to determine immigration status and is collecting data from US citizens without their consent. In some cases, agents may detain US citizens, including ones who can provide their birth certificates, if the app says they are in the country illegally.
These are a few of the findings from a series of articles published this past week by 404 Media, which has obtained documents and video evidence showing that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents are using a smartphone app in the field during immigration stops, scanning the faces of people on the street to verify their citizenship.
The report found that agents frequently conduct stops that "seem to have little justification beyond the color of someone’s skin... then look up more information on that person, including their identity and potentially their immigration status."
While it is not clear what application the agencies are using, 404 previously reported that ICE is using an app called Mobile Fortify that allows ICE to simply point a camera at a person on the street. The photos are then compared with a bank of more than 200 million images and dozens of government databases to determine info about the person, including their name, date of birth, nationality, and information about their immigration status.
On Friday, 404 published an internal document from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) which stated that "ICE does not provide the opportunity for individuals to decline or consent to the collection and use of biometric data/photograph collection." The document also states that the image of any face that agents scan, including those of US citizens, will be stored for 15 years.
The outlet identified several videos that have been posted to social media of immigration officials using the technology.
In one, taken in Chicago, armed agents in sunglasses and face coverings are shown accosting a pair of Hispanic teenagers on bicycles, asking where they are from. The 16-year-old boy who filmed the encounter said he is "from here"—an American citizen—but that he only has a school ID on him. The officer tells the boy he'll be allowed to leave if he'll "do a facial." The other officer then snaps a photo of him with a phone camera and asks his name.
In another video, also in Chicago, agents are shown surrounding a driver, who declines to show his ID. Without asking, one officer points his phone at the man. "I’m an American citizen, so leave me alone,” the driver says. "Alright, we just got to verify that,” the officer responds.
Even if the people approached in these videos had produced identification proving their citizenship, there's no guarantee that agents would have accepted it, especially if the app gave them information to the contrary.
On Wednesday, ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), told 404 that ICE agents will even trust the app's results over a person's government documents.
“ICE officials have told us that an apparent biometric match by Mobile Fortify is a ‘definitive’ determination of a person’s status and that an ICE officer may ignore evidence of American citizenship—including a birth certificate—if the app says the person is an alien,” he said.
This is despite the fact that, as Nathan Freed Wessler, deputy director of the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, told 404, “face recognition technology is notoriously unreliable, frequently generating false matches and resulting in a number of known wrongful arrests across the country."
Thompson said: "ICE using a mobile biometrics app in ways its developers at CBP never intended or tested is a frightening, repugnant, and unconstitutional attack on Americans’ rights and freedoms.”
According to an investigation published in October by ProPublica, more than 170 US citizens have been detained by immigration agents, often in squalid conditions, since President Donald Trump returned to office in January. In many of these cases, these individuals have been detained because agents wrongly claimed the documents proving their citizenship are false.
During a press conference this week, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem denied this reality, stating that "no American citizens have been arrested or detained" as part of Trump's "mass deportation" crusade.
"We focus on those who are here illegally," she said.
But as DHS's internal document explains, facial recognition software is necessary in the first place because "ICE agents do not know an individual's citizenship at the time of the initial encounter."
David Bier, the director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, explains that the use of such technology suggests that ICE's operations are not "highly targeted raids," as it likes to portray, but instead "random fishing expeditions."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Despite Court Rulings, Trump Refuses to Pay Out Food Stamp Benefits to Tens of Millions
"The administration has chosen to hold food for more than forty million vulnerable people hostage to try to force Democrats to capitulate without negotiations," says one Georgetown law professor.
Nov 01, 2025
Two federal judges have said the Trump administration cannot use the government shutdown to suspend food assistance for 42 million Americans. But hours into Saturday, when payments were due to be disbursed, President Donald Trump appears to be defying the ruling, potentially leaving millions unable to afford this month's grocery bills.
A pair of federal judges in Massachusetts and Rhode Island ruled Friday that the Department of Agriculture's (USDA) freeze on benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps, was unlawful and that the department must use money from a contingency fund of $6 billion to pay for at least a portion of the roughly $8 billion meant to be disbursed this month.
“There is no doubt that the six billion dollars in contingency funds are appropriated funds that are without a doubt necessary to carry out the program’s operation,” said US District Judge McConnell of Rhode Island in his oral ruling. “The shutdown of the government through funding doesn’t do away with SNAP. It just does away with the funding of it. There could be no greater necessity than the prohibition across the board of funds for the program’s operations.”
McConnell added: “There is no doubt, and it is beyond argument, that irreparable harm will begin to occur if it hasn’t already occurred in the terror it has caused some people about the availability of funding for food for their family."
SNAP benefits are available to people whose monthly incomes fall below 130% of the federal poverty line. More than 1 in 8 Americans rely on the program, and 39% of them are children. According to USDA research, cited by the Washington Post, those who receive SNAP benefits rely on it for 63% of their groceries, with the poorest, who make below 50% of the poverty line, relying on it for as much as 80%.
McConnell shot down the administration's contention that the contingency funds may be needed for some other hypothetical emergency in the future, saying "It’s clear that when compared to the millions of people that will go without funds for food versus the agency’s desire not to use contingency funds in case there’s a hurricane need, the balances of those equities clearly goes on the side of ensuring that people are fed."
While the judge in Massachusetts, Indira Talwani, ruled that Trump merely had to use the contingency funds to fund as much of the program as possible, McConnell went further, saying that in addition, they had to tap other sources of funding to disburse benefits in full, and do so "as soon as possible." Both judges gave the administration until Monday to provide updates on how it planned to follow the ruling.
However, after the ruling on Friday, Trump insisted on social media that "government lawyers do not think we have the legal authority to pay SNAP with certain monies we have available, and now two courts have issued conflicting opinions on what we can and cannot do."
He added: "I do NOT want Americans to go hungry just because the Radical Democrats refuse to do the right thing and REOPEN THE GOVERNMENT. Therefore, I have instructed our lawyers to ask the Court to clarify how we can legally fund SNAP as soon as possible."
Attorney and activist Miles Mogulescu pointed out in Common Dreams that, "until a few days ago, even the Trump administration agreed that these funds should be used to continue SNAP funding during the shutdown."
On September 30, the day before the shutdown began, the USDA posted a 55-page "Lapse of Funding" plan to its website, which plainly stated that if the government were to shut down, "the department will continue operations related to... core nutrition safety net programs.”
But this week, USDA abruptly deleted the file and posted a new memo that concocted a new legal reality out of whole cloth, stating that “due to Congressional Democrats’ refusal to pass a clean continuing resolution (CR), approximately 42 million individuals will not receive SNAP benefits come November 1st.”
As Mogulescu notes: "The new memo cited absolutely no law supporting its position. Instead, it made up a rule claiming that the 'contingency fund is not available to support FY 2026 regular benefits, because the appropriation for regular benefits no longer exist.'"
Sharon Parrott, the president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, who previously served as an official in the White House Office of Management, said last week that it's "unequivocally false" that the administration's hands are tied.
"I know from experience that the federal government has the authority and the tools it needs during a shutdown to get these SNAP funds to families," Parrott said. "Even at this late date, the professionals at the Department of Agriculture and in states can make this happen. And, to state the obvious, benefits that are a couple of days delayed are far more help to families than going without any help at all."
She added: "The administration itself admits these reserves are available for use. It could have, and should have, taken steps weeks ago to be ready to use these funds. Instead, it may choose not to use them in an effort to gain political advantage."
In hopes of pressuring Democrats to abandon their demands that Congress extend a critical Affordable Care Act tax credit and prevent health insurance premiums from skyrocketing for more than 20 million Americans, Republicans have sought to use the shutdown to inflict maximum pain on voters.
Trump has attempted to carry out mass layoffs of government workers, which have been halted by a federal judge. Meanwhile, his director of the Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought, has stripped funding from energy and transportation infrastructure projects aimed at blue states and cities.
"Terminating SNAP is a choice, and an overtly unlawful one at that," says David Super, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University. "The administration has chosen to hold food for more than forty million vulnerable people hostage to try to force Democrats to capitulate without negotiations.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular